EPS Article Library

References

[1] Abstract: The divine command to kill the
Canaanites is the most problematic of all Old Testament ethical issues. This
article responds to challenges raised by Wes Morriston and Randal Rauser. It
argues that biblical and extrabiblical evidence suggests that the Canaanites
who were killed were combatants rather than noncombatants ("Scenario 1") and
that, given the profound moral corruption of Canaan, this divinely-directed
act was just. Even if it turns out that noncombatants were directly targeted
("Scenario 2"), the overarching Old Testament narrative is directed toward the
salvation of all nations–including the Canaanites.

[4]. Thanks to John Goldingay, who sent me a draft
of chap. 5 ("City and Nation") from his forthcoming third volume, Old Testament
Theology, vol. 3 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2009). Any unreferenced
quotations from Goldingay are taken from this work.

[18]. Ibid., 102. Cp. Josh. 16:53; 2 Sam. 5:6–10.
Wright says that the Jebusites moved from the "hit list" to the "home list"–an
indication that these enemy nations could be incorporated into God's people.

[19]. Nicholai Winther-Nielsen, A Functional
Discourse Grammar of Joshua: A Computer-Assisted Rhetorical Structure Analysis,
Coniectanea Biblical Old Testament Series (Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell,
1995). This work points out that the textually-unified book of Joshua emphasizes
the presence and significance of theological and cultic themes (e.g., Rahab's
faith, the priestly role in the Jordan crossing).

[20]. Susan Niditch, War in the Hebrew Bible:
A Study in the Ethics of Violence (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993),
45, 46.

[21]. Richard S. Hess, "War in the Hebrew Bible:
An Overview," in War in the Bible and Terrorism in the Twenty-First Century,
ed. Richard S. Hess and Elmer A. Martens (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2008),
25.

[36]. For instance, Gordon Mitchell mentions a certain
flexibility regarding how Joshua understands herem (e.g., Rahab, the
Gibeonites, and others are spared) (Together in the Land: A Reading of the
Book of Joshua [Sheffield, England: JSOT, 1993]).

[37]. Hess, "Jericho and Ai," 39. By "stereotypical,"
Hess says that herem with its attendant "all"-languageinvolves not
an exaggeration (which we do see in the hyperbolized "totally destroyed"
and "everything that breathes" language), but a "means of describing something
by detailing a ‘checklist' of what it could include (but not necessarily must
include in every case). So the terms (and these are the only ones in Joshua)
‘men and women' (6:21; 8:25) and ‘young and old' (6:21) need not require that
there really were children, senior citizens, or women there who were put to
death" (Hess, personal correspondence, April 5, 2009).

[38]. On the exaggeration of numbers in the ANE/OT,
see Daniel M. Fouts, "A Defense of the Hyperbolic Interpretation of Numbers
in the Old Testament," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
40 (1997): 377–87. In military contexts in the Bible, ‘eleph (the Hebrew
word for "thousand") can also mean "unit" or "squad."

[40]. Canaan was comprised of towns and city-states–smaller
versions of roughly contemporary cities such as Ugarit. The Amarna letters also
show that citadel cities/fortresses such as Jerusalem and Shechem were distinct
from (and under the control of) their population centers. Such cities could
form military coalitions as well as cooperate politically (cp. Josh. 10–11).
Archaeological evidence (such as the Amarna letters) reveals that these were
not population centers but often fortresses or citadels (e.g., Rabbah in 2 Sam.
12:26; Zion in 2 Sam. 5:7; 1 Chron. 11:5, 7). Evidence of a civilian population
at, say, Ai is lacking (e.g., no prestige ceramics or artifacts). The same can
be said for Jericho, which happened to be strategically located at the junction
of three roads leading to Jerusalem, Bethel, and Orpah in the hill country (Richard
Hess, personal correspondence, April 5, 2009); see also Hess, "Jericho and Ai,"
33–46; and Hess, Joshua.

[55]. What of the killing of the Amalekites in 1
Sam. 15? Verse 3 has similar sweeping language that we find in Deuteronomy and
Joshua: "man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey." The
idea of lex talionis stands behind Yahweh's threat in response to
Amalek's attacking vulnerable Israel–not to mention its ongoing threat to Israel
thereafter (cp. Exod. 17:6–17; Deut. 25:17–19; Judg. 3:12–13): "I will punish
Amalek forwhat he did to Israel, how he set himself against him on the way while
he was coming up from Egypt" (15:2). Even so, we are not told whether the Amalekites
against whom Saul was to fight were noncombatants or combatants. In any case,
the "utterly destroyed" Amalekites show up again in 1 Sam. 30! According to
Hess, they could simply be combatants (personal correspondence, February 26,
2009). Thanks to Bill Craig as well for discussion on this point.

[58]. God tells the Israelites that they will not
quickly drive out the nations from their presence, which would and leave the
land empty (Deut. 7:22); on the other hand, Israel's disobedience and idolatry
would further slow down the process and even prove to be a snare for
Israel (Josh. 23:12–13; Judg. 2:1–3).

[59]. I address the specific question of Abraham's
sacrifice of Isaac in "How Do You Know You're Not Wrong?" (Grand Rapids,
MI: Baker, 2005).

[66]. Rauser connects "bludgeoning babies" in Joshua
with Psalm 137:9. Rauser mistakenly reads too much in to the anguished cry of
the psalmist, which gives way to the metaphorical language of bashing
babies against the rocks. One commentator reminds us, "Biblical poetry, like
most poetry, employs graphic imagery to portray and express its ideas. . . .
This imagery [in Ps. 137:8–9] is no more intended to be taken literally than
elsewhere in the psalms where the psalmists speak of rivers clapping their hands
and mountains singing for joy" (Sailhamer, NIV Compact Bible Commentary,
346; on the idea that infants represented a potential threat to Israel during
the next generation, see John Goldingay, Psalms,vol. 3, Psalms
90–150 [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008], 609–10). Consider the
prophet Jeremiah, who had the thankless task of pleading with and warning God's
hard-hearted and hard-headed people. In one instance, Pashhur the priest–a spiritual
leader of the people!–had Jeremiah beaten and then placed in stocks (Jer. 20:1–2).
In his distress, Jeremiah appeared much like the psalmist: he not only cursed
the day he was born, but he cursed the messenger who announced his birth to
his father, wishing he could have remained in his mother's womb until he died
(Jer. 20:14–18). It is doubtful Jeremiah literally meant this. For
further elaboration on the imprecatory psalms, chap. 11 in Paul Copan, When
God Goes to Starbucks.

[69]. The Hebrew word naqaph "circle, march
around" (Josh. 6:3) involves various ceremonial aspects in Josh. 6–including
rams' horns, sacred procession, shouting (cp. 2 Sam. 6:15–16; also 2 Kings
6:14; Ps. 48:12). This word has the sense of conducting an inspection to see
if the city would open its gates. Jericho, however, refused. Jericho, however,
refused to do so (Hess, Joshua, 142–3).

[70]. Perhaps one final comment on human sacrifice
is in order here. In another context in the NT, Paul speaks of God the Father,
who "did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all" (Rom. 8:32).
While God "sent" and "gave" his Son (John 3:16; 1 John 4:10), this giving is
not to be misconstrued as "divine child abuse." Jesus's self-sacrifice for
the redemption of human beings is not accomplished coercively but freely and
willingly (John 10:14–18; Gal. 2:20; Eph. 5:2, 25). God thus makes a selfless
provision for us by an act of self-sacrifice. Through this act, God
was "reconciling the world to Himself" (2 Cor. 5:19)–an act in which God gives
his very self for the sake of humanity.